At Salon, Katie McDonough posted excerpts from court briefs filed in support of the “Hobby Lobby” suit that claims the contraception coverage mandate is a violation of the employers’ religious liberty. Since these are public documents I thought I’d just post it all here and give my reactions.
Beverly Lahaye Institute
Relying entirely on the 2011 IOM Report, the Government asserts that by increasing access to contraceptives, the Mandate will promote public health by decreasing unintended pregnancies. At the risk of stating the obvious, getting pregnant is not like catching a contagious disease.
At the risk of stating the obvious, it is well documented that there is a strong correlation between use of birth control and reduced numbers of unwanted pregnancies as well as fewer abortions.
If the Government intends to broaden the definition of ‘women’s health and well-being,’ and thus the goal of the Mandate, to include non-health related concepts such as emotional well-being and economic prosperity,
Yeah, it’s not like pregnancy or other gynecological issues treated by birth control pills have anything to do with women’s health.
then it should likewise have considered the documented negative effects the widespread availability of contraceptives has on women’s ability to enter into and maintain desired marital relationships.
Men don’t want to marry women who aren’t breeders?
This in turn leads to decreased emotional wellbeing and economic stability (out-of-wedlock childbearing being a chief predictor of female poverty), as well as deleterious physical health consequences arising from, inter alia, sexually transmitted infections and domestic violence.
So if we let women use birth control, they are more likely to have out of wedlock children, get STDs, and get their teeth knocked out by thuggish boyfriends? And didn’t you just say that touchy-feely stuff isn’t a legitimate women’s health issue?
American Freedom Law Center
Thus, it has come to pass that the widespread use of contraceptives has indeed harmed women physically, emotionally, morally, and spiritually — and has, in many respects, reduced her to the “mere instrument for the satisfaction of [man’s] own desires.†Consequently, the promotion of contraceptive services — the very goal of the challenged mandate — harms not only women, but it harms society in general by ‘open[ing] wide the way for marital infidelity and a general lowering of moral standards.’
Yeah, before 1960, when they invented The Pill, there were no cheating spouses or rape or prostitution or any of that stuff, and women were respected by men for their minds and good character. (/snark)
Responsible men and women cannot deny this truth.
Call me irresponsible, then. At least I’m not stupid.
Eberle Communications Group, Inc., D&D Unlimited Inc., Joyce Meyer Ministries, Southwest Radio Bible Ministry, Daniel Chapter One, U.S. Justice Foundation, Virginia Delegate Bob Marshall, Institute on the Constitution, Lincoln Institute for Research and Education, Abraham Lincoln Foundation, Conservative Legal Defense and Education Fund, and Policy Analysis Center
Stripped of its “evidence-based†facade, the IOM Committee Report encourages amoral recreational sex without reproductive consequences to be the optimal “quality of life†and “life course orient[ation]†for all American women.
(Raises hand) Does this mean that postmenopausal women are all supposed to be nuns?
The IOM Committee’s message is unmistakable. Female sexual activity without risk of pregnancy is to be encouraged by the contraceptive mandate, not only by making a wide range of contraceptives available, but by an education and counseling program designed to ensure that more and more women do not get pregnant unless “at the point of conception†they want to.
Yeah, it’s not like women should have any say about whether we get pregnant or not. Let us control our own reproduction, and the next thing you know we’ll be wearing pants and flying airplanes and demanding the vote.
This mandate is grounded in the “opinion†of the IOM’s 16-member committee that a woman’s “health and well-being†are adversely affected by the risk of an unwanted pregnancy.
We’re all just cows. We’re supposed to drop our calves every spring and not make a fuss about it.
Westminster Theological Seminary
[The] government’s argument goes, the Mandate promotes women’s health because making abortifacients cost-free will enable women who want to be sexually active but do not want to be pregnant will avoid the risks of self-destructive behaviors by stopping pregnancies that may later contribute to their engaging in such behaviors.
I’m not even sure what that says. I think there’s a syntax error in there somewhere. And I take it all birth control methods are “abortifacients.”
The motivation by those using abortifacients is to avoid pregnancy, not to avoid their own supposed, possible, subsequent self-destructive behaviors that might attend an unwanted pregnancy.
In other words, if women didn’t make such a Big Bleeping Deal about unwanted pregnancy, everything would be just fine.
Therefore, by contending that using abortifacients will guard against the adverse health effects of self-destructive behaviors by avoiding pregnancy, the government, in effect, is purporting to protect women’s health without their knowing it.
This makes sense only if one assumes all women are colossally stupid.
The Mandate does not purport to protect women from discrimination based on their being women or based on their being pregnant. What it purports to do is to provide women a cost free way to avoid exercising an aspect of their womanhood — their unique capacity to bear children. Promoting gender equality in that way does not, and cannot, legitimize the Mandate. But beyond that, abortifacient use can never achieve gender equality when it comes to pregnancy avoidance. Abortifacients can terminate an existing pregnancy.
The vacuity is strong in this one.
Women Speak for Themselves
It is “demeaning and destructive†to argue that contraception helps women achieve equality. Most women aspire to and do rear children deserve social support.
Women should have equal opportunity only to stay barefoot and pregnancy and not have anything to say about it. Also, more syntax issues.
Make of all this what you will.
Their case support is so crappy they have no chance. Or at least, in a reasonable world, they wouldn’t.
“Thus, it has come to pass that the widespread use of contraceptives has indeed harmed women physically, emotionally, morally, and spiritually — and has, in many respects, reduced her to the “mere instrument for the satisfaction of [man’s] own desires.â€
THAT’S m favorite line from all of these.
“Oh, we’re only doing this for you own good, sweethearts. Just let us men take of this for you little ladies, hmm? After all, YOU don’t want to be an instrument for OUR satisfaction and desires, do you?”
WTF?
No, seriously, I mean, WTF?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!
Ok, Christian Conservative men, then riddle me this:
If we’re trying to cut-down on wicked sexual behavior in women by NOT providing contraception as part of their health care, then why don’t we try to cut down on wicked sexual behavior in men by NOT providing “Quicker-Pecker-Uppers” as part of THEIR health plan?
I can see the response from the Christian Conservative men:
What the HECK?!?!?!?!?!
Then how will you rich old guy pleasure your young trophy wives, without some “Quicker-Pecker-Uppers?”
You’ll need to, so that she doesn’t run to be the ‘mere instrument for the satisfaction of the chauffeur, the cabana boy’s, or her Yoga instructor?’
What a bunch of faux-Christian misogynistic hypocritical asshats!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
the documented negative effects the widespread availability of contraceptives has on women’s ability to enter into and maintain desired marital relationships
That phrase alone is grotesque. And then the theologians step forward and pretend to be gynecologists… yuck! I’m reminded of Doctor Nick on The Simpsons telling King Henry VIII that Queen Katharine’s “womb is full of sea serpents!”
I can’t see how these bizarre briefs would sway anyone but Scalia and his posse. Even John Roberts and certainly Anthony Kennedy would recognize the 16th Century misogyny stinking up those arguments.
This one is so easy it’s ridiculous.
1) The law does not mandate that any woman use any contraceptive at any time.
2) The choice to avoid pregnancy is a woman’s. (What do these lunatics think of the rhythm method, or a woman’s choice not to marry because every guy that ever proposed was a jerk? Isn’t that a woman’s choice?)
3) Therefore everything in their argument about mandating that health insurance cover contraceptives is poppycock. Women can avoid pregnancy if they coose to, with or with out the coverage mandate.
Lahaye. Meyer. TWO showers. Make that three for good measure, Ol’ Pat can’t be far behind.
OK, I didn’t read all the excerpts, but the repetition does reveal a certain tautological quality in their arguments. It’s the same thing with gay marriage, where this terrible thing they’re warning against is its own worst consequence.
Or actually, it comes down to the same thing, doesn’t it? None of this makes sense unless “recreational sex without reproductive consequences” is self-evidently a monstrosity.
(Seriously, one of the ads in favor of Prop 8 showed this hellish, dystopian future where school children were being taught by their teachers that men can marry other men!)
It would be comical except we have Theodoric of York sitting on the Supreme Court.
Recreational sex without reproductive consequences? Would that mean like Clarence flipping his lizard while watching Long Dong Silver on DVD?
Swami,
I could have done without that image.
But that might explain why he never says anything in court, and keeps his hands under his robe – he’s wearing “Google Glasses!”
As Maine goes…so goes the nation. And as Scalia goes…so goes Thomas.
Set aside the claptrap. The issue (to me) is whether or not corporations are people. Hobby Lobby is a corporation. The main reason for choosing that structure over a sole proprietorship is protection. The assets of the shareholders are separate from those of the corporate entity. Thus a suit against Hobby Lobby could not take the home of the owner, for example. So there is a wall of separation between the sharholder(s) and the company – at least as far as money is concerned.
Hobby Lobby, however wants to claim there is no wall when it comes to deciding what legal medical options should be provided at the expense of the corporation when it offend the superstitious beliefs of the owner. I think this is where the case will break down. If Hobby Lobby was a sole proprietorship, the owners could make a good case that Hobby Lobby is the same as the owner(s) – there is no separation between their moral beliefs and the activities of the company. Such is not the case. Though the owners may or may not be involved in day-to-day operations, the corporate identity of Hobby Lobby is NOT the same as their personal identity. They gave that claim up when they chose to adopt the legal fiction, which is a corporation.
The corporate ‘person’ is not people. Why do we Americans have so much trouble with a simple concept. People are not property – (we almost have that settled.) Property rights are not human rights. A corporation may buy and sell, sue and be sued – but it has no soul. Even the USSC should be able to see the distinction without a microscope or a telescope. But I’m not taking bets.
Ot, sadly, Bart over at bartcop died this week from complications of flu, pneumonia, and leukemia. Bartcop was on my daily list of places to go. I’ll miss his commentary and political cartoons. His site is still open if you want to visit one last time.
“The corporate ‘person’ is not people. Why do we Americans have so much trouble with a simple concept.”
Most of “We the people” don’t any trouble with that simple concept, and never have.
But our Conservatives, Republicans, and most importantly, 5 sociopaths on our SCOTUS did, and still do.
I know it never happens to any other would-be writers, but I realized what I wanted to say 12 hours after my first attempt.
The corporate person is not ‘people’. People are not property, which is obvious now, and property is not people, either. A corporate identity is only property, assets and liabilities, with the ability to buy and sell, sue and be sued. A corporation is property owned by people – but it would be a tragedy on a par with Dred Scott to assign to corporations – human rights.
Thanks Doug, I wrote a comment a week so so ago trying to get at the same point. you said it much better and more clearly.
I really think that there is a conflict between the shelter that the act of incorporating gives and the claim that it shares opinions and believes with it’s executives.
One of the cornerstones of US corporate law is the Dartmouth College case, which relies on the contract clause in the Constitution (forbidding states to pass any “Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts”). But if the charter of a limited liability corporation is a contract, then the government is necessarily a party to the contract, because the government has to recognize and enforce the liability limitations.
So the government has basically agreed to indemnify Hobby Lobby’s investors against personal liability, and I see no reason why there shouldn’t be any conditions on that. Contraceptive access for their employees is a pretty small price to pay. Especially since the First Amendment most definitely protects those employees’ rights not to have to pretend to believe that recreational sex without reproductive consequences is an abomination unto the Lord.